Letters: December 10

Obey the speed limit

1. The speed limit of 55 mph through a large part of Escambia County is too slow.

2. Maybe one of every 500 drivers observes it.

3. There is little to no fear of getting pulled over by a law enforcement officer because it is rarely enforced.

4. Someone with some authority decided it would be prudent to extend that 55 mph zone an extra mile on Interstate 10.

Can anyone explain the logic of that decision to us? As one of the one in 500 who believes that we should obey the laws that govern us, I am very tired of being the "bad guy" because I drive the speed limit, and this extended zone just makes it worse. But I will continue to do so, because it is the right thing to do.

When I was growing up, my parents taught me to respect the laws of this great country, whether I like them or not, so long as they are not contrary to God's law. I think we have failed the next generation miserably by not teaching them that same respect.

- Wade PhillipsMilton

Milton

Constitutional theories

I am writing as a concerned citizen. Normally, we dissolve the decisions regarding the interpretation of the Constitution to the Supreme Court. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson both believed, however, that our liberty is not in the hands of five government lawyers with lifetime tenure; even they could betray the people by agreeing with the other two branches.

The final arbitrators, according to Madison, are the parties of the Constitution themselves: the states! Below is a list of Theories of Constitutional Interpretation, as a guide for the people.

There historically exist three theories of constitutional interpretations: The Original Intent Theory, the Plain Reading of the Text Theory, and The Living Constitution Theory. The first, says that a law is determined constitutional by determining how those who ratified the Constitution interpreted the document. The second determines a law's constitutionality by what the Constitution obviously seems to say in writing. The final theory says that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of the "total history" of the U.S.

The main problem I have with this theory is that it reduces the meaning of the document into a person's understanding of history.